Limiter/Compressor WHILE Recording?

[Gtoboy]

^^^ Check the local used market for on of the all in one type of channel strips with built in compression and eq then you will have all the basic outboard on one device. Then you can add to that later if you like.

 

[CoolCat]

I think my luck is better ITB, during mix stage for compression. The problem for me is I will always put too much on when jamming/tracking because I like it but then later it sounds like crap.
As the vibe takes over when jamming/tracking and the closed back headphones are on the head...its the worst time to make "sound" decisions. ..when you are doing the HR solo thing.
Reading the BEatle book by Geoff- Engineer, he was in the control room mixing and setting sounds and eq up , using monitors.
It wasnt the Beatles at all, they were in the studio with headphones on. So getting the right tones and compression was done by someone else using monitors, not headphones...kind of opposite of a lot of HR "one room" setups.

 

[DM60]

When I first started recording, I thought I would need a compressor to control the dynamics going in, to avoid clipping. Once I understood how digital recording worked, I knew then I could control the gain and not really worry about the levels, then use compression for mixing reasons, not for tracking reasons.

That being said, if the compression is being used as an effect, ya know, whatever works. Sometimes hardware is just the only way to go.

 

[famous beagle]

I certainly use compression while recording vocals. I have two Warm Audio units (WA-76 and WA-2A) and two Klark Teknik units (76KT and KT-2A) that I mainly use for this purpose. I also have a few other outboard compressors:
old Behringer MDX 2000 (very nice transparent compressor - the clone of the Drawmer DL 241 - one of the best bangs for the buck in recording gear IMO, got mine for $45)
(2) DBX 163x (great workhorse comps that are very easy to use)
Alesis Micro Limiter (used as an effect when I want to smash something)
Warm Audio Bus-Comp (used mostly for .... buss compression)

Anyway, I compress on the way in, usually with a 76 style followed by a 2A style, mainly for two reasons:
1. I'm usually recording analog, so I don't have the luxury of infinite compressor plugs during mixdown.
2. It's a classic technique used by hundreds of engineers in the past, so I figured they must know what they're doing.

I usually end up doing this when I record digitally as well, just because I'm used to it and it sounds great. I can't say that I've tried every software emulation of a 2A or 76 comp, but I've tried several, including T-Racks, Waves, and Slate. Although the sound is pretty similar, I'll admit --- close enough to where I'm sure I could be fooled in a blind test --- I just simply find it easier to get a sound with the hardware. And this isn't because I've used them longer. I actually have more experience with the plugs. But once I tried the hardware, it just seemed like night and day with regards to getting the sound I wanted.

YMMV

 

[TimOD]

Outside of compressing the bass guitar on the way in, everything goes in dry with me. I've never had a vocalist who seemed to need it going in (myself included) but I do use it once it's in the box. I can't imagine using a limiter on a vocal going in. I know from reading about the subject that many engineers do indeed use compression going in, but there are some who don't. Any level issues for me are controlled using automation on the recorded vocal; I usually take it real easy with compression, though it's often useful for imparting that sound. Compression is overused very often I feel; same goes for de-essing. I've heard records in which the lead vocal is ruthlessly de-essed to where the esses are gone almost completely. IAnd I think everybody's heard those weird lispy wasp-in-the-bottle de-ess jobs too. Then there is the modern addition of distortion on vocals, along with a shit-ton of plugins that are doing all kinds of funny stuff to make the vocal sit out on the edge of the music. I wonder where it will end?

 

[TalismanRich]

I wonder how much of the "compression going in" is a holdover from the days when you wanted a hot signal going onto tape to minimize noise. If you run compression afterwards, you risk bringing up the tape noise relative to the signal, so it makes more sense to compress first. Heck that's what the DBX system was, with a compression/expansion process, just to drive down tape noise.

I think Beagle hit it on the head. He does it in the digital domain because that's the way he works in the analog domain. As he said, that's the way it was done in the past.

 

[grimtraveller]

I've rarely understood compression ! So I use it as a sound shaper but never going in as such.
I used to have a Carlsbro bass amp that had a compression switch and it was terrible, it used to mangle the sound so badly, I regretted using it every time. On the drums, it sounded quite good while recording ~ until it came time to mix and it sounded like the drums were made of soft rubber.
I've been trying to definitively understand compression since 1992 and in the end, my solution was to just shut out what people say and approach it like the guy in 2112 that finds this guitar, doesn't know what it is and takes it from there, experimenting with it and learning what can be done with it. I've no idea if I'm using it correctly but I hear nothing that impairs my sounds and I don't use it as standard ~ it's by no means a 'must' in my recording.
I often record in sections then bounce together and may use compression on some instruments once in a while. That's as close as I get to compressing going in. I rarely use it on vocals.
Not that long ago, I was watching a video by a guy called Joe Gilder about compression and I honestly couldn't hear any substantial difference in what he regarded as a poor vocal and a good, pro sounding compressed one. I've found the same thing with Warren Heuart and others, like the recording revolution guy. These videos are partly what have led me to the conclusion that too much 'magic' is ascribed to recording vocals. I do accept that maybe I just don't have the ears to hear the fine subtlety of compression and it's tempting to say I'm just impatient ~ although 1992 is a long time ago to make that charge stick !
TalismanRich's point about the engineers being the ones to decide how something is recorded in the studio is a great point. In some ways, homerecorders have been in a unique musical situation that many professional artistes have never and will never find themselves in.

 

[rob aylestone]

I was involved in the UK school and college promotion of music technology twenty years ago when we were just progressing from portastudio 4 tracks - and compression was always a problem. Only a very small number could hear it at first, mainly because they were not listening for the right thing. They could detect distortion, they could hear stereo image problems, they could hear noise, they heard what the EQ knobs actually did, but compression just flew over their heads, untouched. Maybe 10% heard it and used it, another small number heard it and considered it unimportant. Some would simply be unable to master the 4 cables in a patchbay required so were lazy, and others too scared to even turn the knobs in case it broke! As a result, it was a technique only used by the people heading for top marks, those heading for mid grades didn't need to use it as it was NOT a mark earner. Listening back to the music they produced, it was best described as undeveloped, and that is being nice. Many musicians can hear tiny things in their own comfort area. The guitarist who hears the tiny fret buzz on one note, or the sax player unimpressed with their tone when recorded. The students I head who have made a decent living from the music business were the ones with good ears, but good common sense. Chasing their tail rarely paid the bills. Those agonising over tiny processing problems were rarely the ones with the BUSINESS loud in the music business phrase.

 

[Farview]

I wonder how much of the "compression going in" is a holdover from the days when you wanted a hot signal going onto tape to minimize noise. If you run compression afterwards, you risk bringing up the tape noise relative to the signal, so it makes more sense to compress first. Heck that's what the DBX system was, with a compression/expansion process, just to drive down tape noise.

I think Beagle hit it on the head. He does it in the digital domain because that's the way he works in the analog domain. As he said, that's the way it was done in the past.

Other than the tape noise issue, there was also the issue of only having a finite number of compressors to use during mixdown. You had to plan what you were going to use on what ahead of time.

In a time of virtually limitless plugin instances and nearly nonexistent noise floors, compressing on the way in for level control is pointless. The only reason to compress on the way in is for the sound of the compression.

 

[famous beagle]

Other than the tape noise issue, there was also the issue of only having a finite number of compressors to use during mixdown. You had to plan what you were going to use on what ahead of time.

In a time of virtually limitless plugin instances and nearly nonexistent noise floors, compressing on the way in for level control is pointless. The only reason to compress on the way in is for the sound of the compression.

It could also be, though, that you have a nice outboard compressor you want to use but don't have an interface with extra outputs available for sends/inserts at mixdown.

 

[Farview]

It could also be, though, that you have a nice outboard compressor you want to use but don't have an interface with extra outputs available for sends/inserts at mixdown.

I was speaking to the historic reasons why you would use it on the way in.

 

[famous beagle]

I was speaking to the historic reasons why you would use it on the way in.

Oh, sorry. I guess I misunderstood your point on this then:

"In a time of virtually limitless plugin instances and nearly nonexistent noise floors, compressing on the way in for level control is pointless. The only reason to compress on the way in is for the sound of the compression."

 

[Farview]

I forgot about the second paragraph, but even that still agrees with your statement. You like the sound of the nice outboard compressor presumably more than the plugins you have, therefore you use it...because of its sound.

 

[witzendoz]

The funny thing was that when I was recording to tape on my old 16 track I used to hit the levels pretty hard, that's tape compression. So I suppose I was recording with compression on the way in LOL.

I do miss recording to tape. Maybe I should dust it off, if only tape did not cost so much.

Alan

 

[cavedog101]

I compress on the way in. Every time. BUT.....I don't compress as a fix for something I can't control with simple mic technique /placement and preamp level control. I use compressors for the value their individual circuit adds to the sound of the take.

A vocal will always get a fast comp first and set to control ANY plosives...the second comp will be the glue and the intimacy of being able to 'work' the mic.

Is this "old School" ? I certainly hope so.

Chain looks like this mic dujour> 1176> LA2A> pre dujour usually a Neveish thing or a Burl or a ViPre> PTHD. I can fill the track nicely with no overs and need very little on the track @ mix.

I have everything in my room on a quality patch bay and this is the tool needed for this.

I compress bass on the way in. I have a couple of channel strips I like for this. When I am doing a full tilt bass capture that involves an amp I will compress the mic signal from the amp and DI without compression IF and only if the bass output is a balanced signal.....ie: all strings sound at relative volume. If it doesn't the I will compress the DI through something like a DBX that has expansion on the end of its signal. A bass comp should be fast on it's input and have the ability to set the release as well as the output.

Guitars I will crush the crap out of if it's a heavy track. Otherwise nothing. Although, an 1176 with buttons off infront of the preamp for a guitar feed can be quite magical.

Is this "old school" ?? Yep. And it works. Every time.

 

[Ryan Teasnob]

Thanks again everyone! I'm going to look into the Reaper method you mentioned, as that is my DAW of choice. And as some suggested, I am quite familiar with automation envelopes for use AFTER the vocal is printed. I was just wondering about another possibility though. I've ordered a CloudLifter because my RE20 doesn't get enough gain with the 2i2. Would that be something that could feed a compressor? Then taking the compressor output into the 2i2?

 

[bouldersoundguy]

I've ordered a CloudLifter because my RE20 doesn't get enough gain with the 2i2. Would that be something that could feed a compressor? Then taking the compressor output into the 2i2?

The CloudLifter needs phantom power to operate, and it's a fixed amount of gain. You really need to get the signal up to an appropriate level for the compressor to work properly.

 

[Gtoboy]

I compress on the way in. Every time. BUT.....I don't compress as a fix for something I can't control with simple mic technique /placement and preamp level control. I use compressors for the value their individual circuit adds to the sound of the take.

A vocal will always get a fast comp first and set to control ANY plosives...the second comp will be the glue and the intimacy of being able to 'work' the mic.

Is this "old School" ? I certainly hope so.

Chain looks like this mic dujour> 1176> LA2A> pre dujour usually a Neveish thing or a Burl or a ViPre> PTHD. I can fill the track nicely with no overs and need very little on the track @ mix.

I have everything in my room on a quality patch bay and this is the tool needed for this.

I compress bass on the way in. I have a couple of channel strips I like for this. When I am doing a full tilt bass capture that involves an amp I will compress the mic signal from the amp and DI without compression IF and only if the bass output is a balanced signal.....ie: all strings sound at relative volume. If it doesn't the I will compress the DI through something like a DBX that has expansion on the end of its signal. A bass comp should be fast on it's input and have the ability to set the release as well as the output.

Guitars I will crush the crap out of if it's a heavy track. Otherwise nothing. Although, an 1176 with buttons off infront of the preamp for a guitar feed can be quite magical.

Is this "old school" ?? Yep. And it works. Every time.

The funny thing about recording bass amps is the fact that the mic itself becomes a "limiting compressor" along with the amp itself. I find I compress DI bass most of the time and amped bass rarely.

 

[cavedog101]

The funny thing about recording bass amps is the fact that the mic itself becomes a "limiting compressor" along with the amp itself. I find I compress DI bass most of the time and amped bass rarely.

Yes that is true. Or rather it can be true. I am always trying for a good level in the track that will make anything added @ mix work as it should. I don't want to spend time getting a sound and then tracking only to have to fix little widgits here and there. I will almost always use a fast compressor on a mic in front of an amp/speaker. I just want to catch the big transients

 

[Farview]

The funny thing about recording bass amps is the fact that the mic itself becomes a "limiting compressor" along with the amp itself. I find I compress DI bass most of the time and amped bass rarely.

I'm not sure it's the mic, Bass amps tend to compress though.